By Ed Morrissey

Syria has embarked on a program to bolster its military after the war last summer in Lebanon, Ha’aretz reported this morning and repeated by the AP. They have begun acquiring heavy weapons from the Russians and the Iranians, including medium-range missiles that threaten just about every possible target in Israel:

Damascus has large numbers of surface-based missiles and long-range rockets, including the Scud-D, capable of reaching nearly any target in Israel, the report said, and the Syrian navy has received new Iranian anti-ship missiles. Haaretz also said Russia was about to sell Syria thousands of advanced anti-tank missiles, despite Israeli charges that in the past Syria has transferred those missiles to Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.

Syrian officials did not immediately comment on the Israeli reports, but President Bashar Assad said in a television interview immediately after the fighting that Syria was preparing to defend itself. Israeli defense officials confirmed that Syria had ordered new stocks of the anti-tank weapons after noting Hezbollah’s successful use of them against Israeli armor in last summer’s fighting in south Lebanon.

Syria also ordered new supplies of surface-to-sea missiles after Hezbollah used one to hit an Israeli warship, killing four crewmen, off the Lebanese coast last July, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

The two nations remain at war, although they have not fought it for decades. The Syrians want the Golan Heights back, and the Israelis want the Syrians to stop funding and supplying Hezbollah. The new weapons systems, in fact, seem ideal for that kind of arms transfer, the kind specifically prohibited by UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

It comes as no great shock that the Iranians have begun supplying Syria with more materiel. After all, the Iranians need the money, and they have a tight military alliance with Damascus. Both of them run Hezbollah as a joint project, and the eventual destination of these systems can hardly be doubted.

More surprising, or at least disappointing, is the Russian participation in Syria’s distribution channel to Hassan Nasrallah. After all, they signed off on 1701, and they have to know who will benefit from these weapons sales. It appears that Putin once again has determined that the enemies of the West are his friends, despite the Islamist connections to the insurgencies in the Caucasus. It’s really not much of a surprise to see Moscow taking the side of terrorists and totalitarians, although it should embarrass the Russians themselves.

Bashar Assad recently told Diane Sawyer that the US should engage with Syria to establish a peaceful Iraq. This is the same peace he has in mind for Lebanon and Israel. Until Syria stops being a mule for terrorists, they have no business at the table of a serious peace conference, and neither do Iran and Russia. Thursday, February 22, 2007

LA-LA LAND

The war of words between leading 2008 Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama spread Wednesday night, after the campaigns had earlier exchanged heated words when Clinton suggested Obama return funds to Hollywood bigwig David Geffen, who insulted her in a newspaper article. “We aren’t going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters. It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom,” Obama campaign communications director Robert Gibbs said in a statement that was e-mailed to the news media. …

Geffen, a former “Friend of Bill,” co-hosted a star-studded, $1.3 million fundraiser for Obama on Tuesday night in Beverly Hills with Hollywood heavyweights Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg.

Among the 300 contributors who forked over $2,300 each were George Clooney, Barbra Streisand, Jennifer Aniston, Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy and Morgan Freeman. Also in attendance were Dixie Chick Natalie Maines and director Ron Howard.

Geffen became a former FOB in 2001 after Bill Clinton refused to pardon Leonard Peltier, a Chippewa Indian convicted of killing two FBI agents in a 1977 shootout on South Dakota’s Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. …

Geffen is apparently still holding a grudge against the Clintons. In remarks to New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd that appeared in Wednesday’s edition, the music producer suggested that the Clintons have had their day and it’s time for new blood in the White House. … Thursday, February 22, 2007

By Lee Smith
Bikfaya, where three people were killed and many others injured earlier this week by a bomb planted on a bus, is in the Christian heartland of Mount Lebanon, and has hosted a large Christian community since well before the time of the Islamic conquests.

In the past, the high mountain passes surrounding the area, with their breathtaking views, served to protect the Christians from intruders. During the Ottoman era, imperial administrators rarely braved the region at the risk of being cut to ribbons along any steep approach.

Bikfaya is also the hometown of the Gemayel family, and posters of the late President Bashir Gemayel decorate street signs, homes, shops, and cars almost a quarter of a century after his assassination at the hands of Syrian operatives. It’s difficult to pinpoint a specific motive for the murder, but his mulling over a deal with Israel was likely a major factor, and now there are Americans and even Israelis who say that Bashar al-Asad, the son of the man who murdered Bashir, is mulling over his own deal with Israel. But Bashar al-Asad must have the Golan Heights back, first, and those Americans pushing for diplomatic engagement with the regime are keen to negotiate just such a deal. Still, Bashar may place a higher priority on maintaining its influence in Lebanon.

The most recent bombing is just another thread in a long family narrative about the Asads and Gemayels. Bashir’s nephew, Pierre, a minister in the Siniora government, was gunned down in a Christian suburb of Beirut in November of last year. Pierre’s father, Amine, another former president of Lebanon, was in Washington last week, where he heard strong words of support for Lebanon from President Bush, the vice president and the secretary of state.

The attack, says Tony Badran a fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, may have been a warning to Gemayel. “It may be that the Syrians thought Gemayel was going to Washington to campaign to replace Lahoud as president, and Damascus showed they would literally kill to stop it,” says Badran. “It wouldn’t be the first time. Remember that in 2004 Asad reportedly threatened Hariri that ‘only he appoints the Lebanese president.’ If not, as he told Hariri, ‘he would break Lebanon over his head.”

Since the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri two years ago, every single attack in Lebanon has targeted either a Christian or a Christian area. Lebanon was once a country known as a refuge for minorities. And yet, Christians have been singled out for attack by a Syrian regime that is itself run by another Middle Eastern minority, the Alawis.

Before Hafez al-Asad made a deal of political convenience with Imam Moussa al-Sadr to acknowledge the Alawis as real Shia Muslims, their blood was believed to be licit, by both Shia and Sunni. The fourteenth century jurist Ibn Taymiyya ruled that the Alawis were “more infidel than Jews or Christians, even more infidel than many pagans.”

That fear of being swept along in a current of their own blood, as they themselves are letting Christian blood, is what keeps the Alawi regime from being able to negotiate or make peace with Israel, or indeed anyone, and it is why they embraced Arabism and became more “Arab” than even the Sunnis. It is also why they must be flexible enough to incorporate Islamism as well. As a minority sect running a Sunni majority state in a Sunni majority region, they have no choice but to follow regional trends. And they have no legitimacy except for what they can establish through violence. That is how things work in Syria. In Lebanon, there is an agreement between minorities, however difficult, to share power. It’s not surprising that Syria’s ally in Lebanon, Hezbollah, would prefer to play by Syrian rules.

Hezbollah represents much of Lebanon’s Shia minority, and that minority’s large population and rage have led much of the Western press corps to believe that the huddled masses camping out in downtown Beirut are the long suffering wretched of the earth–and thus entitled to bring down the government, and with it the international tribunal investigating Hariri’s murder. It was the particularism of Shia suffering this past summer that made them the darlings of the international community, even though the fanatical Islamic resistance made use of an entire nation, Christians, Sunnis, and Druze alike, to shield them and abet their anti-Semitic eliminationist fantasies. Yes, Shia civilians were killed, but only when Hezbollah took them to war against Israel. Christians are being killed because they won’t submit to the will of Hezbollah’s patron in Damascus.

“Remember that this is the first time that civilians have been targeted since Hariri’s murder,” says Lebanese analyst Elie Fawaz. “This is a very serious escalation.”

It is also a message meant to remind observers of Syria’s capacity to inflict violence in Lebanon. Syria can do anything it pleases in the land of the cedars.

The sporadic car bombs in Lebanon these past two years that picked off one or maybe two people, these weren’t warnings or even threats. A threat would look something like a large explosion in a Gemmayze bar, a Monot nightclub, or the ABC mall in Ashrafiyeh. Such an attack would kill and maim scores of Lebanese civilians. So far, Asad and his regime have merely been making enough violence to keep their place in the conversation Syria wants to have with Washington about the future of the Middle East. And first on the agenda is Lebanon.

So, will the wise men who counsel we sit down and talk with Damascus–the Brzezinskis, the Powells, the Obamas, the Bakers, and Djerejians–will they have the decency at last to recognize what their high-minded posturing can no longer obscure? This is how Syria negotiates, with its knife on the table and dripping with blood.

The Middle East on a Collision Course (3): The Lebanese-Syrian Front By: H. Varulkar

Introduction

Since the demonstrations of January 23 and 25, 2007 ended, calm has prevailed in the Lebanese streets. In addition, opposition leaders have stressed in their statements the aspect of a nonviolent political resolution to the crisis, and have reiterated to the Lebanese people, and particularly to their own public, that they must not be dragged into civil war. Various sources reported that the calm that currently prevails in Lebanon was the result of Iranian influence. This influence is so great that Lebanese sources have argued that the Lebanon crisis is no longer an internal matter, but is now dependent upon a regional settlement that could impose a new reality on the forces in Lebanon and even force them to make certain concessions. [1]

The stumbling block for any regional settlement is Syria, which is vehemently opposed to an international tribunal for the Al-Hariri assassination. As noted in a previous MEMRI report, [2] it was Syria that thwarted the draft agreement for Lebanon drawn up a few weeks ago by Saudi Arabia and Iran. As a result of Syria’s refusal, violent clashes broke out in Lebanon. [3] However, after the clashes were stopped, Iranian-Saudi contacts were resumed and Lebanese sources reported that some progress had been made. The Saudi daily Okaz also reported that Iran would pressure Syriato accept a settlement that would include approval of the international tribunal. [4]

The difficulty in finding a solution for the Lebanese crisis is not only due to the Syrian position, but is also the result of the overall complexity of the situation in the region. The regional initiatives focus not only on Lebanon and Syria, but also on other issues, both regional and global, including: oil issues, Saudi-Iranian relations, Sunni-Shi’ite tensions, the insurgency in Iraq, Iran’s nuclear program, U.S.-Russia relations, and the struggle for influence in the Middle East and in the countries of the former Soviet Union.

In a February 5, 2007 article in the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, which is close to Hizbullah, the daily’s editor Ibrahim Al-Amin revealed that the talks between Saudi National Security Council Chairman Bandar bin Sultan and top U.S. officials had failed, and that the U.S. had rejected Iran’s and Syria’s conditions. According to Al-Amin, this meant that the fire would continue to rage and that no settlement was on the horizon. Al-Amin added that Lebanon was facing difficult days.

Developments in the Lebanese Arena in Recent Weeks

Following the violent clashes in Lebanon on January 23 and 25, the positions expressed by Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah clearly became more moderate. In a speech on January 30, 2007 marking the anniversary of the Karbala massacre, Nasrallah announced that a solution to the crisis must take the form of a political settlement: “We in the opposition believe that the solution and the settlement can only be a political [solution]…”

Recently, Nasrallah has devoted significant portions of his speeches to calling on the public supporting the opposition to be restrained and temperate, and under no circumstances to be dragged into violence and civil war. Nasrallah also warned the Lebanese not to take vengeance into their own hands, because the [unity of the] state and of the military had to be protected. He also said that the weapons of the Lebanese resistance must not be used in the domestic arena, and stressed that civil war and war between Sunnis and Shi’ites were lines that must not be crossed. [5]

On February 3, 2007, the Hizbullah website reported that “Lebanon has entered a stage of…cautious calm and undeclared hudna [temporary ceasefire], in anticipation of the results of the Saudi-Iranian efforts concerning the Lebanon crisis.” [6] The Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar also reported that the opposition leaders had decided to give these diplomatic contacts a chance to bring about a solution to the crisis. [7] Likewise, opposition leaders have issued no harsh statements or threats to again escalate the situation.

Continued Mediation Efforts Fail; Sources Close to Hizbullah and Syria: “The Region Will Continue to Burn”

At the same time, Saudi-Iranian contacts have been continuing, in attempts to find a solution to the Lebanese crisis. Al-Akhbar, representing the Syria-Hizbullah axis, reported that the main obstacle in these contacts was the issue of the international tribunal, and mentioned the possibility that this issue would be postponed until the investigation of the assassination was completed. [8]

Sa’d Al-Hariri, a leader of the March 14 Forces, who visited Russia to learn its position on the international tribunal, was informed by the Russian Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee chairman that Russia did not support “unnecessary haste” in investigating the assassination. Likewise, Russian National Security Council Secretary Igor Ivanov said that “the establishment of the international tribunal must not be a source of instability in Lebanese society…” [9] Ivanov also rejected Al-Hariri’s request that the international tribunal be approved by the U.N. Security Council without the signature of either the Lebanese parliament or the Lebanese president, who is known to be Syria’s protégé. Moreover, Russia also refused to announce its support for the government of Fuad Al-Siniora, because Russia supports only a national unity government in Lebanon, which is Hizbullah’s position. [10]

Saudi National Security Council Chairman Bandar bin Sultan, who is conducting the contacts for Saudi Arabia, went to the U.S. to discuss the crisis. In a February 5, 2007 article, Ibrahim Al-Amin reported that during the visit bin Sultan had failed to obtain U.S. backing for the understandings reached by Iran and Saudi Arabia. He wrote that Iran and Syria know that only the U.S. can provide the guarantees that they want – namely, guarantees that they will not be attacked. Therefore, bin Sultan conveyed the following messages to his American hosts: If the U.S. wants Iran and Syria to help it reduce its losses in Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon, it must agree to a ‘give and take’ deal. Likewise, the U.S. cannot demand that Syria and Iran hand over all their cards. Al-Amin also stated that the U.S. had told bin Sultan that it had no intention of giving up on either the Iranian nuclear issue or on the issue of the international tribunal. As a result, Al-Amin claimed, an agreement would not be reached any time soon, and the region would continue to burn. Al-Amin concluded by saying that “Lebanon is facing difficult days” and that the opposition forces had to decide, now more than ever, which path they would take in the next phase. [11]

In recent days, various sources have been reporting on the possibility that Arab League Secretary-General ‘Amr Moussa would return to Lebanon in order to renew his initiative for settling the crisis. Moussa, who is currently in Russia and who met there with top Russian officials, sent the director of his office to Lebanon on February 5 to begin talks with the various forces in Lebanon.

Lebanese opposition sources claimed that Moussa’s upcoming visit will be the last chance to discuss a solution that deals with the national unity government and with the international tribunal, but leaves the issue of early parliamentary elections for discussion by the future unity government. The sources added that were Moussa’s initiative to fail, the opposition would make an “irreversible” decision – to demand the establishment of a transitional government that would pass a new elections law and hold early parliamentary elections. The sources added that in such an event, all attempts by the March 14 Forces to intimidate the Lebanese public by invoking the specter of civil war would be useless, and that the opposition would be forced to escalate its activity to the maximum. [12]

A New Syrian Approach to the United States

In a February 5, 2007 interview for the American ABC TV, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad expressed his willingness to help broker peace, saying: “We [i.e. Syria] have credibility. We have good relations with the other factions. They should trust [us] to be able to play a role. We have [these] good relations with all the parties, including the parties participating in this government, and the others who oppose the political process. So that’s how we can help.” [13]

This new Syrian openness to U.S. apparently stems from the fact that Iranian-Saudi negotiations for a settlement are continuing, and Assad feels that Iran is about to waive his vital interest – that is, his demand to postpone the approval of the international tribunal.

[3] It should be noted that Syrian sources denied reports that Syria had thwarted the Saudi-Iranian agreement, saying that the reports were aimed at harming Syria. The sources added that Syria knew nothing about any Saudi-Iranian initiative, but only about an exchange of ideas between the two countries. According to these sources, Syria was not setting any conditions for efforts to resolve the Lebanon crisis, and supported anything acceptable to the Lebanese. Al-Akhbar, Lebanon, February 2, 2007.

[10]Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), February 2, 2007. The paper also reported that Al-Hariri had conveyed to Russia a Saudi request that after his visit to Saudi Arabia, Russian President Vladimir Putin would not visit Qatar, but the request was refused.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), emerged from a Wednesday meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, saying that opportunities exist to continue a dialogue about Syria’s role in helping steady the chaos in Iraq.

Nelson is the Democrats’ newest member of the Intelligence Committee and his a sharp schism between the Democrats’ newest Intelligence committee member and President Bush.

Nelson was the first U.S. official to visit Syria since the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended involving Syria and Iran, two nations considered state sponsors of terrorism by the White House, in the stabilization of Iraq. While Nelson responded cautiously to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, his judgment that there is “a crack in the door” for future talks sparked immediate criticism from the Bush administration and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).

During Nelson’s hour-long meeting with Assad in Damascus, the recently re-elected Democrat and the Syrian leader found common ground on the need to stem the downward spiral of political unrest and violence in Iraq. The Bush administration has charged Syria with failing to fully secure its border with Iraq, allowing insurgents to cross over.

“Assad clearly indicated the willingness to cooperate with the Americans and-or the Iraqi army to be part of a solution,” Nelson told reporters in a Wednesday conference call from the Middle East. “I think there is a crack in the door for discussions to continue. I approach this with realism, not optimism.”

But the president approached Nelson’s trip with stern disapproval of any diplomatic relations with Syria, which maintained a military presence in Lebanon for 15 years after open hostilities between the countries ceased.

“Syrians deserve a government whose legitimacy is grounded in the consent of the people, not brute force,” President Bush said in a Wednesday statement. He called for the release of Syrian political prisoners and an end to Syria’s interference in Lebanese politics, which came to a head with the 2005 assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister.

Nelson also challenged Assad on Syria’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas, two armed terrorist groups operating largely in Lebanon and the Israel-Palestine area, respectively. “The two differed sharply,” according to a statement from Nelson’s office.

“The Iraq Study Group is a nice group of people … that doesn’t mean it is now the policy of the U.S. government,” Kyl said.

Congressional reaction to the Iraq Study Group’s call for a détente has crossed party lines, with some Republicans and Democrats concurring but many favoring continued isolation of Syria.

Nelson’s met with Bashar al-Assad despite objections by the State Department, which also opposes efforts by Senate Democratic colleague Chris Dodd (Conn.), who also will visit Syria in coming days. Dodd said, through a spokeswoman, that he canceled plans for an April stop in Syria at the urging of the administration but supports an attempt to change the U.S.’ isolation-only approach.

“I don’t believe in having conversations with people for the sake of having conversations; idle chatter is not the point of all of this,” said Dodd, the second-ranked Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. “However, when you’ve got governments like Syria which have influence on the course of events, it’s important to engage with them …”

He added: “I’m not going to suggest that one [senator] going into Syria is going to change everything. But I do think it’s important that they do hear directly from members of Congress about concerns we may have, and questions we may wish to raise.”

Nelson, who will head to Lebanon tomorrow, said Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) are also expected to soon visit Syria.

Kyl and James Woolsey, the former central intelligence director with whom he co-chairs the hawkish advisory council at the Center for Security Policy, wrote to Bush on Monday affirming their opposition to any U.S.-Syria thaw.

“We encourage you to follow your better instincts,” Kyl and Woosley told Bush, calling Syria a “de facto colony” of Iran that “has gone to great lengths to destabilize the Middle East.”

Gathering Storm in LebanonBy P. David HornikFrontPageMagazine.com | December 7, 2006When Jordan’s King Abdullah warned early in 2005 about the formation of a dangerous “Shiite crescent” in the Middle East, many dismissed his words as the fears of a pessimist who did not appreciate the strides democracy was making in the region. Today, with Iran-backed radical Shiites continuing (among other factors) to destabilize the situation in Iraq and the Iran/Syria/Hezbollah axis now making a naked attempt to topple the elected government and grab power in Lebanon, Abdullah’s words emerge more clearly as what they were: the fears of a knowledgeable, realistic Middle Easterner.

Lebanon’s Daily Star describes ongoing riots, clashes, and tensions since hundreds of thousands of Shiites flooded the streets of Beirut on Friday to call for the resignation of Sunni prime minister Fouad Siniora’s government. The paper cites Lebanese Army commander General Michel Suleiman as saying the standoff is “drain[ing] the army’s resources and weakening its neutrality. This weakness will make the army unable to control the situation in all areas of Lebanon.”

The Star also reports that “opposition leaders plan to hold meetings in the coming days to discuss taking anti-government demonstrations to the ‘next level.’” The same article notes that “profane and personal attacks on members of the government, particularly Siniora and [Youth and Sports Minister] Ahmed Fatfat, have increased since…Friday, with several participants in Tuesday’s funeral procession [for a Shiite killed in rioting] chanting ‘Death to Siniora.’”

Especially ominous is that, unlike past intra-Lebanese strife that tended to cluster along Muslim vs. Christian lines, the present confrontation has a starkly Shiite vs. Sunni character, with the Christians divided between the two camps. Given that the Sunni side is relatively moderate and tolerant whereas the Shiites are spearheaded by fundamentalist Hezbollah and backed by Iran, the only reason some Christian factions, like Michel Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement and the late Suleiman Franjieh’s Marada Party, are siding with the Shiites is power. In the Middle East, being on the losing side can be particularly costly. That some Christian groups would now be hopping on the radical-Shiite bandwagon only underlines King Abdullah’s warning a couple of years ago.

Matters have reached such a pass because of the West’s persistent refusal to recognize the danger posed by the Iran/Syria/Hezbollah axis and confront it effectively. Things looked better when, in the aftermath of Lebanese Sunni leader Rafik Hariri’s assassination by Syria in February 2005, Syria was nudged by American, French, and internal Lebanese pressure into carrying out a cosmetic withdrawal of its military from Lebanon. But Syria maintained its grip by leaving a dense network of intelligence operatives in Lebanon and perpetrating a string of assassinations of its Lebanese opponents culminating in the murder of Pierre Gemayel last November 21.

Other factors have emboldened the radicals since 2005: America’s ongoing, confused struggle in Iraq; the West’s laughable, hollow posturing and threats toward Iran as it continues its march toward nuclearization; Israel’s unilateral flight from Gaza last year and bungling in its war against Hizballah last summer; the Democrats’ win in the U.S. elections amid talk in Republican circles of retreat from Iraq and “engaging”—that is, appeasing—Iran and Syria.

With the West still showing a spark of assertiveness by moving in November to set up a UN-backed tribunal in Lebanon to try suspects in the Hariri assassination, the radicals decided it was time to act. The murder of Gemayel and the massing of Shiite demonstrators (Hezbollah operatives) in Beirut are direct affronts not only to Lebanese Sunnis or to the Lebanese state, but to the UN, the international rule of law, and civilization itself.

The Daily Star reports that on Tuesday German chancellor Angela Merkel and French president Jacques Chirac called for “an end to all interference in the affairs of Lebanon. As far as Syria is concerned, we want that country to stop supporting forces that seek to destabilize Lebanon and the region…If Syria changes its conduct, it could hope to resume normal relations with the international community and with the countries of the European Union in particular.”

Apart from such standard empty inducements, it does not appear that Western countries are doing anything aside from watching and hoping the crisis does not boil over. Nor is it clear what they can do as long as the sources of the crisis—the Syrian and, particularly, Iranian regimes—are allowed to keep building their strength.

If not checked, the Shiite tide—with its non-Shiite fellow travelers like the Christian factions in Lebanon, the Sunni Hamas and Fatah terrorist movements, and so on—threatens not only to tighten its grip on Iraq and Lebanon but to foment a conflagration with Israel and endanger the region’s oil-rich Sunni regimes. That the West does not react even to that danger by taking the Lebanese crisis more seriously testifies to its overall failure to cope with Middle Eastern reality.

Tuesday saw another nail driven into the coffin of US President George W. Bush’s vision of a free and democratic Middle East. The Syrians aren’t even trying to hide their involvement in the assassination of Lebanon’s Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel.

Hours after Gemayel was murdered, his killers issued a communiqu calling themselves the “Fighters for the Unity and Liberty of Greater Syria.” They said that they killed Gemayel because he was “one of those who unceasingly spouted their venom against Syria and against [Hizbullah], shamelessly and without any trepidation.” Gemayel, they threatened, would be the first of many victims. As they put it, “Sooner or later we will pay the rest of the agents their due…”

The hit this week was not a bolt from the blue. For the past several weeks Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah and his bosses in Syria and Iran have made it brutally clear that they intend to bring down the anti-Syrian government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and replace it with a pro-Syrian, pro-Iranian coalition led by Hizbullah.

Although their intentions are clear, a casual observer of events could be forgiven for finding the timing of Gemayel’s murder somewhat mystifying. After all, the UN Security Council is preparing the establishment of an international tribunal to try those responsible for the February 2005 murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Why would Syrian President Bashar Assad wish to make people mad at him now by killing yet another anti-Syrian politician in Lebanon? What a casual observer misses is the simple fact that events in Lebanon do not stand on their own. Like Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon is a front in a regional war being waged against the US, Israel and their allies by Iran and Syria. Iraq is another front in this war and Gemayel’s murder is intimately tied to developments in Iraq.

The Democratic Party’s victory in the November 7 Congressional elections convinced Iran and Syria that they are on the verge of a great victory against the US in Iraq. Iranian and Syrian jubilation is well founded in light of the Democratic leadership’s near unanimous calls for the US to withdraw its forces in Iraq; Bush’s firing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his appointment of his father’s CIA director Robert Gates to replace him; and Bush’s praise for the Congressionally mandated Iraq Study Group charged with revisiting US strategy in Iraq, which is being co-chaired by his father’s secretary of state James Baker III.

Although his committee has yet to formally submit its recommendations, Baker made clear that he will recommend that the administration negotiate a withdrawal of US forces from Iraq with Iran and Syria. That is, he is putting together a strategy not for victory, but for defeat.

Baker fervently believes that US foreign policy should revolve around being bad to its friends and good to its enemies. Consequently he thinks that the US can avoid the humiliation of the defeat he proposes by buying off Syria and Iran, the forces behind most of the violence, instability, subversion and terror in Iraq. If the US accepts their conditions, they will temporarily cease their attacks to enable a US retreat that will look only mildly humiliating to the television viewers back home.

This week Bush said he has yet to decide how to move ahead in Iraq. But Baker is moving ahead without him. While Bush also said that he opposes negotiating with Iran and Syria, last Friday The New York Times reported that Baker and his group held talks recently with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem. And, as truth would have it, for the past year or so, the US Ambassador to Baghdad Zalmay Khalizad has been conducting negotiations with the Iranians. Administration sources say that Bush is expected to make a decision on the course of operations in Iraq by mid-December.

But as far as Iran and Syria are concerned, the game has already been called. They are wasting no time collecting their winnings. As Gemayel was being murdered Tuesday in Lebanon, Muallem paid a visit to Baghdad. There he established full diplomatic relations between his country and Iraq. Monday Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced his intention to host a three-way summit with his Iraqi and Syrian counterparts. Responding to Ahmadinejad’s invitation, Iraqi President Jalal Talibani is scheduled to visit Iran and Syria next week.

Just as Israelis and American Jews both bitterly recall Baker’s acrimonious and degrading treatment during his tenure as secretary of state, so the Syrians and Iranians take comfort from his record. They remember Baker as the man who accepted the 1989 Taif Accord that ended the Syrian-sponsored Lebanese civil war by sacrificing Lebanese sovereignty to Assadian fascist occupation in the name of regional stability.

Then too, Baker is remembered as the man who abandoned Iraq’s Shi’ites to their fate at the hands of Saddam after the US failed to assist them in their post-Gulf War rebellion which the US itself had encouraged. Finally, no doubt they noticed that Baker’s law firm Baker-Botts is representing the Saudi government in the 9/11 victims’ lawsuit against the kingdom.

BAKER’S CURRENT dealings with Iran and Syria parallel closely Israel’s talks with the Palestinians in the lead-up to its withdrawal from Gaza and northern Samaria last year. As Baker does today, at the time Israel appealed to the Palestinians to restrain themselves temporarily to enable an orderly Israeli surrender of the territories.

Last year the Palestinians demanded that Israel hand over the international border between Gaza and the Sinai in exchange for their cooperation. By forcing the IDF to withdraw from the Philadelphi Corridor, the Palestinian Authority transformed a tactical and symbolic victory for jihad into a strategic victory for jihad. Without Israel controlling the border, Gaza was rapidly transformed into a major base for global terrorists.

Today, the Iranian and Syrian price tags for cooperation are similarly high. The Iranians demand international acceptance of their nuclear weapons program replete with European abandonment of Israel. Their demands have apparently been met.

There is no end in sight for the UN Security Council deliberations over the relatively insignificant European sanctions proposal. And between British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s speeches calling for Israeli capitulation on all fronts; French threats to shoot down IAF jets in Lebanon; the Spanish-French-Italian “peace plan;” and France’s Arab League-like treatment of Israel in the UN, it is self-evident that the Europeans have abandoned Israel to Ahmadinejad’s tender mercies.

Syria set its price for cooperating with the US in Iraq when it murdered Gemayel. That is, in addition to pressuring Israel to give up the Golan Heights, the US will be expected to accept the reassertion of Syrian/Iranian control over all of Lebanon through a new government controlled by Hizbullah and its allies which will replace the Saniora government. The fall of the Saniora government will also spell the demise of the Hariri murder tribunal. Iran and Syria also demand that the US abandon its policy of regime change in both countries.

Another similarity between Israel’s retreat from Gaza and northern Samaria last year, its withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000, and the proposed US retreat from Iraq today are the obvious consequences of such a retreat for the US, the region and the world. Far from bringing peace and stability, as the champions of the withdrawal policy mindlessly claim, a retreat will cause more war, more instability and more suffering in Iraq, in the region and throughout the world.

In the wake of a US (and Coalition) withdrawal from Iraq, the country would become an Iranian-Syrian-controlled base for global jihad. Battle-tested, heavily armed terrorists, cocky after their victory over the Great Satan, would use Iraq as a stepping-off point for attacks throughout the region and world. Israel and Jordan, as allies of the defeated great power, would be first on the list of targets.

Moreover, as was the case with soldiers and officers of the South Lebanon Army after the Israeli withdrawal, and with Palestinians who assisted Israel in counter-terror operations in Judea, Samaria and Gaza before the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, Iraqis who worked with Coalition forces will likely be killed, arrested and tortured by their new mafia-like terror masters.

Israel will find itself beset by an emboldened, nuclear weapons building Iran, an exhilarated Assad and by Iranian proxies from Gaza to Ramallah to Beirut.

BOTH ISRAEL’S decision to vacate Gaza, northern Samaria and south Lebanon and the current push in the US to leave Iraq are informed by the same strategic confusion. In choosing the strategy of retreat, Israel and the US have ignored the regional and indeed global nature of the war being waged against them. In such a war, it is impossible to view conflicts as discrete campaigns. Everything is related.

Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 inspired the Palestinian jihad. Its withdrawal from Gaza and northern Samaria caused the two-front war this summer with Iran and Syria in Gaza and Lebanon. That war in turn inspired the current chaos on Lebanon, the Iranian-Syrian brinkmanship in Iraq, and Iran’s emboldened sprint to the nuclear finish-line.

The fact that both Israel and the US continue to ignore the nature of the war was made clear this summer when they accepted UN Security Council Resolution 1701 which while setting the terms for a cease-fire in Lebanon made no mention of Syria and Iran – the main parties to the war. Then too, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s stated interest in giving Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians, and the US hope to retreat from Iraq, show that both countries continue to deny reality.

The most pressing question today then is whether Bush will give in to Baker and the Democrats and agree to capitulate to Iran and Syria in Iraq, Lebanon and indeed throughout the world. Unfortunately, things look bleak given that Bush relies most heavily on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Rice has been blocking US action against Syria and Iran for the past two years. She was the primary architect of UN Resolution 1701 this summer, has been pushing for dangerous Israeli concessions to the Palestinians and is known for her good relations with Baker.

Although a great blow to Bush’s vision of democracy in the Middle East, Gemayel’s murder can still serve as an opportunity for the reinvigoration of that vision. If Bush sees this murder as the warning sign it is of what awaits Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Iraq and indeed the entire world if the US removes its forces from Iraq or is perceived as moving in that direction; if he finally recognizes that Iraq is not a separate war, but a great battle in a larger struggle, then Bush will be able to formulate a new strategy for victory.

Such a strategy, founded on an understanding of the regional and global nature of the war, will change the emphasis of US operations in Iraq in a manner than weakens, rather than strengthens Iran and Syria.

Such a strategy is the only way to ensure the continued functioning of the Saniora government and indeed the survival of Lebanon as an independent nation.

Most importantly, such a strategy will be the only way to ensure that a policy will be formed and adopted by the US and Israel that will prevent Israel’s annihilation at the hands of an Iranian nuclear bomb.